Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rizzo320 writes "AppleInsider is reporting that an Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs. The suit was filed in the patent troll's and forum shopper's favorite venue: Marshall, TX. The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but is now owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. 'Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description' of the patent, according to the article. IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"

I think you're missing out on the point of patents. When the framers of the Constitution set up the trademarks, copyrights, and patent law it was specifically for a case like this. They imagined that old man Wilcox would invent an idea and patent it, but without any resources to develop his idea, he'd sit on his patent and wait. Then when rich old Farmer Gray took his new farming device to market 15 years later and proved to be a financial hit at the farmer's markets Wilcox would swoop in unveiling his submarine patent and demand a piece of the action, if not take over the device entirely from Gray! Early capitalism at its finest.

However, if you don't go after infringements in a timely fashion (e.g. wait for the patent to become an industry standard, or wait for the target company to become successful), then you risk losing rights.

No, you fool, for the simple reason that "different" doesn't imply different all in the same way. Thanks for dragging me down to your level with your unimaginable literal-mindedness, though. It's been a real eye opener.